Reply

Hi, I once believed in everything that Al Gore told me but after reading other opinions I am now willing to believe either case if they can convince me one way or the other.

I attended Lord Monckton's debate with Dr Tim Lambert and although Dr Lambert caught Monckton out badly on part of his presentation, Monckton came over as a very convincing speaker in demonstrating that man made global warming was severely overblown.

Now to this speaker - firstly you introduced Michael Oppenheimer as presenting the "science". Does that mean you believe that there is no scientific opposition to the extent of man made global warming? And all other opposition is uninformed political hog wash? Oppenheimer is also lead author in the IPCC's third and fourth assessment report. Is he therefore also tarred with the same brush as the East Anglian Climate Research Unit that considers any scepticism as dangerous?

He also skipped over many issues in his presentation:

* No mention of the Vikings in Greenland or the medieval warm period.* Did CO2 lead or follow temperature in the past?* Where did all the huge amounts of carbon in rock fossils come from and from where we safely evolved?* Do we REALLY fully understand ALL the natural processes that affect climate?*Does CO2 have a linear or logarthmic greenhouse affect?* So global warming is a LONG term phenomena and we may see short periods of cooling?Why Michael and just how long is long? Long enough to see you out of retirement if the earth starts to cool for 20 years?

Look Michael, I do not question whatsoever that the earth has been gradually warming but the case that it is CO2 induced is purely correlation and until you can PROVE otherwise or we get a cessation of this warming with a reduction of CO2, I cannot be convinced. Unfortunately I think none of us here or even our grandchildren will see that day.